The problem with religions and the moralities that spring from them is thier inability to accept and adapt to change. Yes, there are some methods of acting which should be observed for the smooth function of society, but none should be set in stone.
Great post.
Molly, I believe what you are speaking of may be the subject of a documentary I saw on the Discovery Channel a number of years ago. They hypothisized that a sea (I believe the Black, but my memory is not perfect) did not yet exist, because the waters that would form it were held back further inland by a large natural earth-dam. There were a large number of peoples who lived in the floodplain below the earth-dam, many of whom were forebarers of a numb
JoeUser Forums
Let me see... as for countries that hate us and want to do us harm, I'd say Iran sure qualifies. You conveniently ignore them though, as they have actually come out in no uncertain terms in favor of Bush .
Everything is relative. Nothing is ultimately necissary. Things only become necissary when the goal they accomplish is deamed desireable. By that same token, there is no ultimate moral rightness. Your comment on some societies being 'better' then others presupposes that some traits are inately better. While I would tend to agree that I prefer and see some traits as superior, that does not mean everyone in the world would. I accept that as the way
I also agree that the self-centered approach of Christianity et al is disgusting. Assuming that we are the IMAGE of God just seems so incredably concieted and...disgusting. I don't know another word for it.
The fact is that morality is completely subjective. In the eyes of terrorists, they are the moral ones, and we are the immoral ones. Gov't isn't there to legislate morality, becuase there is no reasonalbe way to do that. Gov't is there to maintain an environment that promotes the growth ond development of society. Gov't protects with the police against murder and theft because doing so allows people the time not spent on self-preservation to work o
Ugh, how true.
Yeah, you believe that because you have absolutely no understanding of why the terrorists do what they do. They couldn't care less about who's in the White House.
cita, he is the only one with any experience, as far as I know, with the imediate issue of satanists in the military. I have had satanist friends, but I would not concider myself to have enough practical knowlege to really speak on what effect being a stanist would have in the armed services. And Island Girl, as far as I know, yes, the key tenant of satanism is self gratification. It's not specifically anti-Bible, it's more a-bible, if that
The problem is that there is really no magic point where the cellular construct, if you will, passes from part-of-mother-hood to person-hood. At every point from egg to probably about 12 to 14 years old, a child (or pre-child, but for ease of statement, I will say child) is both part-of-mother and indiviual, except to differing degrees. An egg is, say, .00001 extent individual and .999 extent mother (extents do not have to add up to 1). At 12 or 14,
There is no reason why, as a stanist, you couldn't percievce the advancement and protection of civil society as a direct benefit to yourself, and thus serving for the gov't would be an advancement of your own self-interest.
"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved" Distinct unique thoughts , as far as I know, are generally associated with brain activity. I don't see how you could possibly concider the issue of brain activity off topic. If you really want to talk about off topic, how about this argument about whether or not we are on topic?
"They are able to read the distinct unique thoughts of a baby that has just been concieved" Nothing about a fetus. Let me reitterate that the initial post says just been concieved . At conception, I believe there is no argument that it is a blob of undeliniated cells. Buu, if we define human life as starting at the first signs of brain activity, then what seperates us from mice and rodents? They have brain function as
Brain activity vs. cognisence, MB.
Age-based legislation is completely different. That is a matter of the gov't saying "you are not concidered mature anough to make those decisions." While that is a debateable position, it is not the point of this thread. Anti-gay legislation is saying "you can't do that becuase we think it is 'wrong'." That is not at all the same.
Yes, because most people have the medical knowledge to determine who is legit and who is a quack. Medicine is a feild of experts that services largely lay people. You cannot expect that a non-expert can make a truely inteligent and informed decision under such circumstances. They simply do not have enough knowledge to do so.
If there was conclusive proof of cognisence coming from a blob of non-deliniated cells with no brain, then I think we would be questioning more then just the issue of abortion.
There seems to be a standard lack of common sense from people who over-use the Caps Lock key.
If you want to talk about pandering, look at Bush. He goes to the RNC and bashes gay marriage and unions, then goes on TV (forget the show) and says he supports gay unions. Pick one, Mr. Pres. There are plenty of hateful Bush supporters as well. In fact, most of them are. You got the entire anti-gay movement behind him, for instance. I couldn't support Bush for the positions he holds on all the issues you raise here.
You forget that tidal and other hydro power options exist.
I haven't read all the posts here. I haven't, because it is the same spew that has been coming from the religious right pracitcally since Darwin said the word evolution. First, let me point out that scientifically speaking, a theoy is not the same as a theory in general coloquial language. A hypothosis is more in line with the coloquial meaning of theory. A theory is a hypothosis that has a body of supporting evidence, but cannot be as conclusively
I think that that comment about reducing terrorism to a 'nusance' that Kerry made and the Reps predictably latched on to as a sign of weakness was adressing this very point. Yes, there will always be crazies, but if the number of people sympathetic to and able to be influnced by thier messages are reduced or irradicated through education and other means, then the whole Muslim extremist terrorist element will become as much a threat as the militant Naz
The war on terror is winnable to an extent, just not really with guns and rockets. If the lack of general wealth, freedoms, education, and information in the mid-east was lessened significantly or irradictaed, Osama and his ilk would have a hard time finding recruits, and terrorism would become somewhat of a paper tiger.
The only difference between a wolf and a sheepdog is perspective. In any conflict, I can almost guarantee you that both sides think they are the sheepdog fighting the wolf. In general though, history writes the victor as the sheepdog. Also, denial is not the only alternative to being one of the two carnivor types.
